US Election: How many plan to vote AGAINST someone, rather than FOR them?

@sergio: It's kind of an incredible suspension of critical thinking to believe that money paid for influential political figures to give speeches is money paid to hear a speech from an influential political figure. I mean, I'm just an average person, so maybe I'm just a total idiot about this stuff, but if I were some corporate bigwig or a banker or something, I would think paid speeches would be more valuable for getting them into a room with me, a corporate bigwig or banker, show them where their bread is buttered, let them know what I think about where gov't policies are and where I think they maybe should go. Plus, if you're operating a business that profits from doing things that people consider to be bad for society at large, it really helps give you credibility if you can get supposedly respectable people to come to your office and take photos with you.

But, I don't know, maybe I'm just a really bad person and it's a good thing only upstanding people who aren't schemers or deceivers go into business or politics.

Prospective presidential candidates giving paid speeches with six figure price tags to banks, pharmaceutical companies, foreign despots and arms contractors is like video games reviews.

@bojackhorseman: That would be Barney Frank.

Mark Cuban even points out he gets paid to give speeches. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289342-mark-cuban-clinton-paid-more-in-taxes-since-2007-than-trump

@chrissedoff: Let's just remember that you said you're a really bad person. I'm just agreeing with you.

Well said.

I'm agreeing with him as well. He's right.

Now that Bernie Sanders is out of the race, the Young Turks won't be even close to being this critical of Hillary anymore, but this clip does a nice job of explaining the problem.

It's not "Jeff got money from reviews." It's Jeff got over half a million dollars to give three speeches at EA, told everyone how he wagged his finger at EA while he was there, an EA employee says "no, he said we were great," and then Jeff gives a glowing review of the next big EA game.

That would be a little closer to an accurate analogy than "Jeff gets paid to write for Giant Bomb"

@spaceinsomniac: You do know that the amount of money speakers are paid corresponds to both their status and supply/demand of their time.

The company I work for has speakers once or twice a month. The speakers we get tend to be in the science and tech fields. They're generally some inventor and patent holder, or expert in the latest Silicon Valley fad. Never anyone that would be considered a household name, even in Silicon Valley, so they don't get paid as much as the Clintons.

Now if we wanted to book someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, it would cost over $100,000. Bill Nye's a bit cheaper.

It's not surprising to people that actually understand how much people get paid for giving speeches that the Clinton's would actually be paid a lot per speaking engagement. Even Trump has given speeches in the past for $1.5 Million for each one. It's only the conspiracy nuts and people that, quite frankly, aren't too bright and easily taken in by those conspiracy nuts, think that the amount the Clintons earned are outrageous for giving a speech, and there must be something amiss.

No, the analogy fits as it is, but I'll expand it more if it was hard for you to understand. Jeff clearly gets paid for reviews because it's part of his vocation. Jeff goes to an EA press junket, then comes back and writes a glowing review. (Now, the game is actually very good and deserving of the high praise Jeff gives it.) If you said, "Jeff got money for that great review he wrote about that EA game," it would be factually correct, but it can also be interpreted that Jeff was paid off to give that glowing review. Now anyone in their right mind would know that Jeff wasn't bribed, and the money he "got" was part of the salary CBS pays him. A certain segment of gamers might come up with conspiracies that he was bribed.

I like Jeff, but I hate to break it to you (and him): he's just not that famous to get paid as much as most of these speakers.

How much was Nigel paid to endorse Trump? Because an unemployed man doesn't tend to work for free. And, to put Farage's Brexit success in perspective, the polls for that were always narrow. Right from the start, there was a significantly mixed response that seemed to switch between leave and remain. Right now, Trump has a much bigger bridge to cross.

You know, there's this social skill that I've picked up over the years that I like to use in conversations like this. I can disagree with opposing opinions, and I can do so without feeling the need to suggest--or even believe--that people who don't feel the way I do are dumb, or childish, or naive. You might consider working on that.

For me personally, it's not the fact that she's given money for speeches. I'm well aware of the basic concept behind more famous people getting paid more money for speaking engagements. She should be paid well for the speeches she gives, but it's the choice to accept speech offers from certain groups that is the issue. The worst of it comes down to the idea of elected officials being critical of groups who then befriend them through speaking engagements, and end-up changing their mind after directly compensating them for their time and status. That's what we're talking about here. It's all there in that brief Young Turks clip that I provided.

Hypothetically, imagine if George W Bush ran as a governor in part on a platform of some common sense gun control measures. Not like Hillary Clinton--who believes that if you ever got caught with weed, you should never be able to own a gun for the rest of your life--but actual common sense gun control measures. Imagine he also said he was critical of the NRA.

Then, after stepping down from his time as a governor, he accepted speaking engagements with the NRA, said that he was critical of the NRA while he was speaking there, and an NRA member in attendance said "no he wasn't." Then he ran for president, changed his mind on the issues that he supported before, and claimed the multiple well-compensated speaking engagements had nothing to do with it.

If that series of events took place, you would honestly consider "maybe don't accept money from groups you're critical of, and then later support them" to be some wild conspiracy theory? I wouldn't, but if you think so, that's understandable. It just means you disagree.

He does, but even people in my office speak of their support of Trump but in hushed tones which is why I believe the polls are way off. Democrats have done an extremely good job of demonizing Trump supporters to the extent that they are more emboldened than ever but still afraid to show their support because they don't want to lose their jobs or friends. It's pretty sad, but it's also the reason why Trump will win in November.

Is polling not anonymous?

If memory serves it is not only anonymous but somewhat random, but the thing about the US is depending on where you hold the polls you can make them say pretty much anything you want. If you were to poll NY state you would probably get a landslide in the opposite direction that you would get from a place like Montana.

But that variance is why national polls poll people around the country, not just one region, and why state polls mention which state they're for. Legitimate polling companies make their money from being accurate, so they aren't especially incentivized to skew the results all over the place. There are plenty of sites you can look at that aggregate the various polls and project the eventual election outcome based on that aggregation. The trick isn't finding a poll whose outcome you like, it's trying to pull in data from as many different polls as possible to find the trends that enable an accurate projection.

People get tired, just individual people who work every day and don't see the return. This election is exhausting and the rhetoric has been toxic. This is the year of the victim. Donald Trump won the primary for a number of reasons. Bernie Sanders was representative of the same reaction in the Democratic party. I voted for him in the Democratic primary. Every day for two years we've been beaten down with this mentality that it's open season on black people, every single day. Every single day. In California, two Hispanic women were delivering newspapers and the LAPD fired like over a hundred rounds into their truck. HuffPo was MIA on that one. Hillary Clinton has the father of a mass murderer (Florida) on stage and he's smiling. He's up there having a great time. Who the hell would defend that?

I sit here and wonder why anyone would criticize a Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton supporter. That Clinton Foundation that is so wonderful and done so much seems like it would have been the highlight of the convention. Didn't come up at all. Nobody mentioned it because it's hugely successful? There should be a certain amount of responsibility for the people that support her to at least address the notion that the foundation might not come up for a reason. The SAME reasons that Donald Trump won't release his tax returns and slips by that one every time. They are always "being reviewed," and "I'm being audited." His ability to downright ignore that request is certainly smoke there's fire. There's no reason why anyone would hide that if it didn't have some nugget that the opposition would capitalize on. He can be as xenophobic as he wants, he won't lose sleep over it and nobody who supports him would either.

What has been interesting though, is seeing how the gaming community in small pockets have reacted to this "cycle." When loathing the politics of the day I do take interest in what is happening in what I consider to be my wheelhouse, gamers like myself. By and large, most lean to the left, which I do expect. The users who disagree however are the ones that are the few and shut down immediately. Arstechnica, and Wired in particular, are apt to ban many users this year based on their Conservative opinions. These are sites that I would visit like Giantbomb.com as a way to "get away from that stuff." The fear I have are these pockets of people who are willing to shut down the accounts of any user with any viewpoint regardless of affiliation.

Nothing changes in Washington when these people take office unless Congress has some momentum one way or the other. I'm curious to see where the "safe spaces" and "triggers" debate goes after this is over. There's a generation of people being told they need to check their privilege, get into those safe spaces, and avoid actual debate. I really do believe that thinking you are a victim is a bad way to live your life. But that's what the politicians need. They want people who need them. Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is overrated. BOOM.

I've been so repulsed by the sheer amount of bigotry displayed by much of the gaming press that there are many sites that I don't even give clicks anymore.

But yes, to think that a site such as this is frequented by industry professionals--who seem perfectly fine with this sort of intolerance being allowed to happen--is a seriously unfortunate situation. That sort of hatred for opinions opposed to your own is a dangerous road to travel, and it only leads to others holding far more intolerance for your own opinions.

As far as the media is concerned, though, the problem is articles that try to fairly and accurately represent both sides of a politicized debate will never be a thing. People have always been drawn to their stupid in-group / out-group crap, and not many people want to read how both sides have some decent points to make.

Also, not many people want to WRITE articles like that either, and most importantly, they won't sell. Demonization sells. Extremity sells. Generalization sells. Mutual respect and a simple difference of opinion does not.

Why would a Trump supporter be afraid to show their support? If they really feel that Trump would win in November then they must believe that more people support him than those that wouldn't. It should then follow that most of the people around them would also support Trump since Trump's going to win.

What part of Trump's platform do people in your office support that requires a hushed tone?

Ban this man!

..but yeah, I keep my distance from politics usually since it is so toxic, but I recently voted to leave the EU and believe or not that doesnt make me a racist.

(because apparently that's all it boils down to)

Anyway there's another thread for that.

Thank you for the informative response, personally I subscribe to Nate Silvers fivethirtyeight Mostly because not only is Nate Silver right more often then he is wrong, but he has freely said "this election cycle is a nightmare to predict and I could totally be wrong."

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#odds

Going by that website, Trump and Hillary were about 50/50 on July 30th, 89/11 on August 14th, and 77/22 right now. So then, what happened to change the numbers that drastically? If nothing substantial did happen, why should any of these numbers be believed if they fluctuate that wildly?

Just wondering, but did being told "if you support this, you must be / probably are a racist" make you less likely or more likely to vote the way you did? Because if Trump wins the election, I think people fed up with accusations like that are going to be large determining factor.

@spaceinsomniac: Trump had several bad days in a row in the middle of August, he was feuding publically with a gold star family among other things. There was no where for his numbers to go but up, and honestly any other year and Hillary's operation would be the train wreck of the two.

@spaceinsomniac: You're looking at the polls only model on five thirty eight and it is one of three poll based models they do. Polls only does what it's name implies, it only considers what the polls say in terms of projecting odds. It takes months worth of polls into account, but more heavily weights recent polls and polls from more highly regarded posters. It also takes into account "house effects" like when certain pollsters relighably show higher numbers for one candidate that is out of line with national averages. Like, for example, the LA Times poll has a strong Trump house effect and he reliably polls 3-5 points higher there than most other polls. So the polls only model has some memory of past polls, but it doesn't take historical data or other factors like the economy into account.

The polls plus model takes the economy, historical data, and expected trends like post-convention bumps into account. So it is much more conservative in both directions. It's peaks and valleys aren't as extreme and it has shown Trump down all the way, though it also saw a closer race in late July.

Their now cast is, as it's name implies, the projection that is most biased towards the present. It basically says what would happen if only the latest round of polls mattered. So it swings wildly as the national polls move, but it gives the best immediate snapshot.

So why were Trump and Hillary running super tight in late July? She was publicly chastised by the FBI investigation into her email server, Bernie still hadn't tried to pull his people back into the Democratic fold, and Trump had managed to keep his foot out of his mouth for a few weeks. Then the conventions happened in early August and Trump's poll numbers barely moved while Hilary's jumped ten points. So what was a closer race became a huge lead after the conventions, which happens to be one of the most watched and transformative moments in every election cycle. She rode a bigger and longer than expected convention bump into late August where she's now "fallen" to only being up 5-7 percent. So that's how the polls move and that's why they can still give you a good idea where the election is and where it's going. The polls change because people change their minds. If one projection could unflinchingly model the election in May, then it's founder would be a very wealth person. Instead we have models that take as much relevant information into account as possible and try their best to project that limited data into useful forecasts.

edit: Here's their in-depth explanation of how the model works if you're interested: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

I certainly agree with you 100%. I'd write more, but I think you summed it up nicely. :)

@spaceinsomniac: I didnt vote the way I did to spite anyone. The "you're a racist" or "you're an idiot" stuff only really came up aftewards, mostly from people in college who arent old enough to vote.

Just wondering, is the whole "if you voted to leave your a racist" thing partially because the face of the Brexit stuff was... well kind of a racist? I am not informed enough to say if leaving/staying was a good thing but MAN that guy seemed like a massive dick...

And it is kind of on topic, I dont assume that EVERYONE that supports trump is a racist... but if you are a racist in America during this election cycle... he is probably the one your voting for.

@dizzyhippos: Boris Johnson? Not that i'm aware. I think it's more how racist people have acted after the vote (various attacks and shouting "get out" etc. to foreigners) that have caused this. I expect the same sort of thing to happen if Trump gets elected to be honest. The Brexit stuff was always about regaining control, not just of our borders, but our laws. That's the big thing that seperates it from the US election. Granted there was a whole lot of bullshit on both sides which remains true with the election. (trump isnt going to build a wall)

@boozak: I think he means the UKIP leader.

@thatpinguino: Oh.. I would'nt call him the face of Brexit, but yes he is a bit racist. (or at least he portrays himself that way) Also guessing you mean former leader since he left UKIP.

@boozak: Oh okay. Well that guy's been stumping for Trump in the US so I think he's at least trying to position himself as the face of Brexit. At least to American audiences who aren't as informed about the complexities of that situation.

Exactly as I stated, the extreme left has done a terrific job of demonizing his supporters. It's politically incorrect to state your fondness of trump and most people are too afraid to be politically incorrect; just another reason why so many people love Donald Trump. In California, stating that you want to vote for Trump causes demonization and hate-mongering. I've had 5 people in my office figure out that I'm a Trump supporter and were so happy but also didn't want to talk about it except in private; it's horrible and sad.

What part of Trump's plan is causing people in your office to be afraid to show their support?

@spaceinsomniac: There are people in regulatory positions that have ruled in favor of companies, e.g. oil and telecommunications, who then left the government and were promptly hired by one of those companies as a lobbyist. I am against that. This isn't that.

There's a difference between lobbying for a group after leaving a regulatory position in the government and giving a speech. She gave the speeches when she was out of the State Department. While she may have had opinions on the banking industry, whether positive or negative, she had no regulatory oversight of them. The speeches were on various topics not solely about banking, so being critical of them really wasn't what she was going to speak about. There is no proof of quid pro quo dealings.

I would be suspicious if she hid the fact that she gave speeches, but they're all there in the Clintons' tax records. And based on those records, they wouldn't really need the money like some of these lobbyists. There has been so many conspiracy theories and falsehoods surrounding them, that they actually pay pretty much what they owe, if not more. They aren't trying to pay the least amount possible in their taxes like Trump because they know conservatives would call them out. They donate a lot more of their wealth than Trump. They just don't have the need to take money for favors.

There's no proof that Trump has done anything wrong in his tax records, but I'm more suspicious of him than the Clintons. They've been more transparent than him.

@horseman6: I'm a moderate, former registered Republican, turned Independent after GWB's first term.

I don't think all Trump supporters are racists. I do think all racists are Trump supporters. If you want to deny that, then there's pretty much nothing more to say. I do think Trump is a bigot. That's not an opinion coming only from "the extreme left." That opinion is shared by many on the left, the middle, and the right. It's an opinion shared by many foreigners, liberal and conservative.

Trump doesn't need anyone to demonize him. He does that all on his own. He might have gotten his supporters to believe the media is the culprit, but I assure you, it's Trump's words and actions. It's your choice if you want to ignore his behavior or rationalize it. From what I've seen online, his supporters are as demonized as Clinton's, as you've demonstrated.

California is now a blue state. You're likely to get the same kind of stares being a Trump supporter here as a Clinton supporter in Kentucky.

People seem to love claiming to be victims of political correctness. Politically incorrect is not the same thing as just being incorrect on a topic of politics.

Any position you have and that you tell people about is an opportunity for them to judge your decision making process. If someone tells me that they support a candidate who has demonstrated that they have very little understanding of how our federal government works, even less about foreign policy, and whose most concrete policy statements are fueled by ignorance and racism, then you can rest assured that I will be making some judgements about what they value in a candidate.

@mrroach: lol

@golguin: please see the two comments by mrroach and Sergio.

Trump has done nothing but fuel his frogboy nationalists. Him welcoming it, and not condemning their open support is damning enough.

Those comments don't mention anything about Trump's plan and the part that your coworkers support. Did your coworkers talk to mrroach and Sergio? I thought they talked to you and so you'd know the position that's causing them such anguish.

My guess for one thing they wouldn't want to speak about, especially in California, with both a largely liberal population and high latino population is the ridiculous idea that Trump will be able to build a wall, and get Mexico to pay for it. Part of it is because it and the rest of his immigration plan is bigoted, especially after what has been roundly condemned as a hate speech last night, and has cost him support from some more conservative latinos. People get very defensive about the possibility of coming off as bigoted themselves. The other part is that some of his supporters hate facts, and having them pointed out to them about how the government and treaties work. They just want that damn wall and aren't going to get it whether Trump is elected or not.

If you like facts so much then why claim the all racists are trump supporters? It's easily refuted.

Also, what about the speech last night was bigoted and a hate speech?

@horseman6: Oh, this must be about the Neo-Nazis that have flocked to support Clinton after hearing her hate-filled rhetoric. Nope, that's Trump. Then this must be about KKK endorsements of Clinton that she refused to disavow. Oh wait, that's Trump again. I got it! This must be about white nationalist blogs masquerading as news sites publishing favorable things about Clinton and hit pieces against her enemies. Mmmm... nope. That's Trump and the people he's brought into his campaign. Oh, this is about the Reuters poll about racial attitudes that I'm already familiar with. I guess I will concede that anyone with any racial prejudice or supports people with racial prejudices is a racist.

The speech, like many of his other speeches, was filled with lies, half-truths, massaged facts while ignoring other facts, and unenforceable policies, that many people would have disagreed with and picked apart. What made some people, both those against Trump and some of his own (former) supporters, consider it hate speech, were some of the similarities to hate speeches from other fascists. The key thing is the use of any minority groups as a scapegoat for all the problems their society has to foment anger and hatred towards them. I don't know if you only caught part of the speech -- maybe you were in the bathroom -- but Trump did that last night. He was fearmongering about all those criminal aliens that will kill them all, but not as long as he sets up his own Gestapo to racially profile people. Alright, that wasn't a direct quote, but pretty much what he was saying.

But hey, what do we have to lose?

Earlier in the week both candidates were interviewed on NBC as part of a town hall style meeting on national security.

At one point host Matt Lauer asked Trump about his often mentioned 'secret plan to beat Isis' which he had previously said involved asking military generals to come up with a plan if he takes office. Looking for clarification, Lauer asked 'Is the plan you've been hiding asking someone else for their plan?' Here is Trump's response:

'No. But when I do come up with a plan, that I like, and that perhaps agrees with mine, or maybe doesn't, I may love what the generals come back with, I will convene, I have a plan, but I want to be, I don't want to, look, I have a very substantial chance of winning, make America great again, we're going to make America great again, I have a substantial chance of winning. If I win, I don't want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what the plan is.'

So there's the plan.

Yet another Trump supporter punch another protester.

I don't know what is scarier. The idea that some of the polling results has the gap shrinking, and we might end up with a fascist running the country. Or the idea, even if he loses, that this election cycle has shined a light on a lot of terrible people in this country. They are truly deplorable, or they defend the deplorable within their ranks, trying to divert attention away from it. Even Colin Powell recognizes this. Even his current campaign manager admitted this earlier in the year when she was for Cruz.

It's not simply a matter that these bigots exists, it's that Trump caters to them.

The sort of behavior that this election cycle has encouraged has been pretty frightening. What worries me is how people like that will behave once Trump takes the office, if they'll believe that by doing so they'll be validated and essentially have a mandate to act this way more openly or not.

Even if he doesn't, things feel so divisive now. They always have, but it feels like we've reached some astonishing new height, and I'm not sure what it'll take to come back down.

edit: Bleh, all that sounds pretty bleak, but I guess this election has already taken a lot out of me.

I heard this perspective recently on a podcast and it made sense to me. It wasn't that long ago that the Democrats represented groups in this country who were the uneducated and poor. These stories would probably have come out and you'd say the Democrat of the day caters to them. They were angry, but felt like they were unable to do anything around them. Feeling maligned forces people to act out. We are now shifting to a political landscape where the Democrats have fought hard for these well educated people who are the wealthy and have the momentum. This country doesn't stumble uncontrollably down a path of socialism or whatever fascism is in 2016. If it did the polling in every election cycle would reflect that for POTUS and Congress who is the real shit show but checks each other nontheless.

It's not simply that Trump caters to bigots, it's that Clinton does it as well.

Johnson/Weld 2016

@godzilla_sushi said:

@sergio said:

Yet another Trump supporter punch another protester.

I don't know what is scarier. The idea that some of the polling results has the gap shrinking, and we might end up with a fascist running the country. Or the idea, even if he loses, that this election cycle has shined a light on a lot of terrible people in this country. They are truly deplorable, or they defend the deplorable within their ranks, trying to divert attention away from it. Even Colin Powell recognizes this. Even his current campaign manager admitted this earlier in the year when she was for Cruz.

It's not simply a matter that these bigots exists, it's that Trump caters to them.

I heard this perspective recently on a podcast and it made sense to me. It wasn't that long ago that the Democrats represented groups in this country who were the uneducated and poor. These stories would probably have come out and you'd say the Democrat of the day caters to them. They were angry, but felt like they were unable to do anything around them. Feeling maligned forces people to act out. We are now shifting to a political landscape where the Democrats have fought hard for these well educated people who are the wealthy and have the momentum. This country doesn't stumble uncontrollably down a path of socialism or whatever fascism is in 2016. If it did the polling in every election cycle would reflect that for POTUS and Congress who is the real shit show but checks each other nontheless.

It's not simply that Trump caters to bigots, it's that Clinton does it as well.

A few things:

How is the guy in the red hat a bigot? What am I missing, here?

The word bigot is best used to mean "someone who is intolerant or hateful of people who hold different opinions or beliefs." We already have the word 'racist' to describe people who judge others by the color of their skin.

Using the worst behavior of a massive group as ammunition to say "see, this is what they're really like! These are the kinds of people who support them!" has always been faulty logic. There are enough bad things to say about both Trump and Hillary that no one should need to point to their followers bad behavior to make an argument against them. If the guy in the red hat is somehow some giant racist due to something I'm missing in that picture, that still goes for Hillary supporters too.

My grandfather was a racist SOB, and a lifelong Democrat until the day he died.

No, I'm with you on that one. I think I'm just feeling it because this is the first time I genuinely don't want either major party candidate AT ALL.

Clinton's bascically status quo.

As for Trump, there's enough checks & balances to block him if he actually wanted to be a fascist (which I don't believe...he's just going by the Controversy Creates Cash mantra)

@spaceinsomniac said:

@godzilla_sushi said:

How is the guy in the red hat a bigot? What am I missing, here?

He's wearing a Mercedes-Benz hat, celebrating the company that built Hitler's personal car. It's obvious!

I'm voting FOR Hillary Clinton, because if voting for "the status quo" (which many people say is why they would rather not vote for Clinton) is bad, then the United States should've burned down their entire system of government decades ago.

At this point, even though I'm far from a libertarian, I'm leaning toward giving Johnson my vote.

@godzilla_sushi: You need to look up the definition of "caters." This is a false equivalency.

@spaceinsomniac: The man in the picture is the father of the shooter that killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub. He's anti-gay because he said, "God will punish those involved in homosexuality." Unlike most bigots, he also said it's "not an issue that humans should deal with." He is more of a never-Trump than a bona fide Clinton supporter, because he thinks Trump has no real solutions and she does. Using bigot is the easiest catch all to use.

Strom Thurmond was a very racist Democrat. He opposed the Civil Rights Act, and he, like many racist Democrats, switch over to the Republican party, but not all of them did. There's a difference between being a racist and still voting for the party you always did -- some people never change -- and being attracted to politicians because of their viewpoints like Thurmond who was in office until 2003.

I'm sure some people might disagree with me, but if you're a birther, you're a racist. Trump is a birther. The only reason he and others doubt President Obama was born in Hawaii to an American citizen is because of his skin color. Trump surrogates like to claim Clinton started that, but she didn't. Someone that supported her did make this false claim, but there's a difference between a voter saying it years ago and a candidate, like Trump, saying it until recently, and now says, "I don't talk about that anymore." People are racist and Islamophobes when they say he's secretly a Muslim and not a Christian. Trump can't even manage to do what McCain did when he was running; he shut down one of his own supporters when they made these claims.

Trump's racist, Islamophobic, and bigoted words themselves attract these type of people. His off the cuff remark that in his day they would drag people out and beat them has emboldened the worst of his supporters to do exactly that. They may not be direct orders (yet), but those words do have consequences. And it's not just around his rallies, you have American citizens of Latino descent being harassed by his supporters. Chants of "build that wall." A bus driver hitting a student because he was speaking in Spanish. Trump is poison to our society.

This isn't every single one of his supporters, but it's a lot. A majority of his supporters polled think Obama is not American or a Christian. A lot of them think a religion should be banned. The rest that don't share these beliefs get defensive about having these facts pointed out. Why? Because without them their candidate doesn't have a chance?

I actually didn't like Clinton before, and I was a Sanders supporter during the primary. Chalk it up to having been a Republican during Bill's time in the office, so I developed an unfounded bias against her. I can understand and relate to some of those feelings of distrust about her, since I used to share those feelings when I was young. Then I looked into her actual history versus what the GOP has said all these years, and can confidently say I'm voting FOR Clinton and not voting against Trump.

Please continue to label everyone and everything you disagree with as "bigoted,rascist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, etc, etc". The modern definition of a racist is "anyone or anything a liberal doesn't like." Everyone in this echo chamber has no clue just how sick people are of hearing it. It's the same strategy, the ONLY strategy, the left has had for more than a decade now and the fact that Hillary finally dredged it out of the playbook is what is going to secure Trump's presidency. Enjoy your rude awakenings to the real world in November.